This photo was done using a 1/2 second exposure time hand held and moving the camera vertically during the exposure. I made sure that there was pretty good separation of the trees. I think the effect retains enough detail in the bark to let you know that the verticals are trees; but it eliminates all of the fiddly clutter that you would normally have when shooting a group of trees.
The second shot, which I don't like as much, illustrates how a shorter exposure (1/8sec) will preserve more of the detail between the trees.
Erich
kymarto
Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
Nice! Moving in the direction of the dominant elements ensures that there is enough visual information that the abstract is recognizable
kymarto wrote:
Nice! Moving in the direction of the dominant elements ensures that there is enough visual information that the abstract is recognizable
Thank you. That is just what I had in mind. Glad it worked.
Erich
Creative and well executed, Erich!
You're getting better and better at achieving a specific look. As Kymarto says, not too much detail that it loses abstractness but not so little detail that it gets lost in obscurity.
R.G. wrote:
You're getting better and better at achieving a specific look. As Kymarto says, not too much detail that it loses abstractness but not so little detail that it gets lost in obscurity.
Thank you for the compliment. It is definitely a balancing act.
Erich
Interesting concept. I definitely like the first one best. I spend so much effort these days just holding the camera steady it seldom occurs to me to move the camera and see the results
Thanks you for showing us something different.
Gave me an Idea to try it on our Christmas tree. Not sure what I will have. 🤔
Curmudgeon wrote:
Interesting concept. I definitely like the first one best. I spend so much effort these days just holding the camera steady it seldom occurs to me to move the camera and see the results
Thank you. Of the two, I think the first one works best. Largely because of the separation between the trees; but also because the background fades nicely adding a bit of mystery. Thanks for taking a look.
I'd be interested to see how the technique works on a Christmas tree. I would think it might just merge into a smear of colored lines; but I've been wrong before.....
Erich
ebrunner wrote:
I'd be interested to see how the technique works on a Christmas tree. I would think it might just merge into a smear of colored lines; but I've been wrong before.....
Erich
Got just a bunch of color straight lines. No value.
Seems like a Simple technique, but in reality it’s not. I think you picked the right subject to get your final results.
Interesting results Erich.
Don
Jim-Pops wrote:
Got just a bunch of color straight lines. No value.
That's what I was afraid of. You are very creative. I'm sure you'll come up with some use for the technique that works.
Erich
NJFrank wrote:
Seems like a Simple technique, but in reality it’s not. I think you picked the right subject to get your final results.
You are right. Composition really matters. If you are shooting trees, you do have to have some separation and you can't have too much blur. IMHO. It is a fun thing to play around with, though. There is a lot of value in experimenting with things that you might not be terribly familiar with.
Erich
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.